51- xs-/ 



/ 




"WHAT MAKES 
THE MILK AND CREAM TESTS 
VARY SO?" 



An Address delivered before the Connecticut Dairymen's 
Association, at Hartford, Conn., Jan. i6th, 1901, 

By 

JOSEPH L. HILLS, 

Director, Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, 
BURLINGTON, VT. 



% 






"WHAT MAKES THE MILK AND CREAM 
TESTS VARY SO?" 

JOSEPH L. HILLS, 
Director, Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, Burlington, Vt. 

This is a burning question in Connecticut as it is in Ver- 
mont. It is, perhaps, not quite as important an issue since your 
State is not as thickly studded over with creameries and 
cheese factories as is the Green Mountain Commonwealth. 
Its area capable of cultivation is not much larger than yours, 
yet it contains within its borders over 250 separate concerns, 
or, counting skimming stations, nearly 350 places where 
co-operative dairying is in vogue. At over 300 of these 
milk and cream are bought and paid for by test, and at every 
one of these there is abundant querying as to the variations 
which appear in milk testing. What makes the milk and 
cream tests vary so ? Doubtless the patrons of your cream- 
eries are asking the same question. I cannot hope this 
afternoon to resolve all their doubts, but perhaps that I may 
be able to throw some light upon the subject and help to 
make better feeling between creamery managements and 
their patrons. Some of the matters I shall mention may 
have little or no pertinence in Connecticut, owing to the 
differences in the methods of co-operative dairying in the 
two states. 

Let us consider this matter under three heads : 

I. Why does the milk or cream furnished by different 
patrons vary in test ? 

II. Why does the milk or cream furnished by the same 
patron when taken to different creameries vary in test ? 



III. Why does the milk or cream furnished by the same 
patron, at the same creamery, vary one week with another, 
and one month with another : why does not the quality 
remain unchanged ? 

I. VARIATIONS IN TESTS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL PATRONS. 

1st. Why does Smith's milk or cream test differ from that of 
Jones ? Differences of breed, individuality, food, nervous 
excitement, environment, weather, the stage of lactation, 
and the management of the ^reaming devices may influence 
the result. Let us sketch some of these. 



Every observing dairyman appreciates that differences in 
cattle, due to the character of their breeding, are such that 
some cows give richer milk than others, The Channel Is,- 
land cows have been bred through many scores of years with 
a specific purpose in view, to make a high grade milk ; and, 
on the other hand, the cattle of Holland and vScotland have 
been bred generation after generation more particularly to 
make a large quantity of milk. While there are exceptions to 
every rule, still, speaking broadly, Jerseys and Guernseys 
give richer milk than do cows of other breeds. vSmith's test 
outranks Jones' because long lines of breeding with a definite 
aim in view have implanted in his animals a tendency to- 
ward making a better grade of milk than can Jones' cows. 

INDIVIDUALITY. 

While the differences in breed are frequently concerned in 
the test variations as between one patron and another, the 
individuality of the animal is often quite as important. 
There are families within breeds. The cows of some families 
give relatively rich milk, and others in other families rela- 
tively poor milk. One of my predecessors on this platform 
yesterday, with glib tongue and apt illustrations, aided by 
pictures of sundry types of cows, told this story far better 



than I can tell it. John Gould is a past master in the cow 
business, and his views upon the relation of type to perform- 
ance already given in his volume may, well be referred to in 
this connection. 

FOOD. 

He who looks to food to grade up the quality of milk looks 
in vain. Food variations may increase the quantity of milk 
but seldom if ever bring about permanent changes in quality. 
If a cow is fed a very scant ration she may alter more or less 
the quality of milk given>but when a cow is changed from a 
good, palatable, plenteous ration to another of similar grade, 
but differently made up, no material change in the quality 
of the milk is likely to follow, provided the rations are 
normal. We have been trying for years at our station to 
persuade cows to change the quality of their milk, but at no 
time and in no way have we brought about a permanent 
change. When we have fed fat (vegetable oils, like corn, 
cottonseed, linseed and palm oils, etc.,) to the cow we have 
changed the quality of the milk to a slight extent ; but we 
have hurt the quality of the butter far more than we have 
helped the fat percentage. 

No Holstein cow can be wheedled into giving Jersey milk 
by any normal rational feeding, unless it be by semi-starva- 
tion. A starving or half -fed cow is apt to make richer milk 
as a consequence of her ill treatment — but far less of it. 

NERVOUS EXCITEMENT. 

Such conditions as 'may be provocative of nervousness have 
more influence upon the quality of milk than most people 
are apt to think. I once heard a Maine dairyman say that 
in his judgment the best thing on a dairy farm was a dead 
dog, and that a coat of whitewash in the barn was a close 
second to it. A dog once thoroughly killed never again dogs 
cows, and thus one of the most common sources of bovine 
agitation is removed. Milk-making is a nervous function 
and in proportion as a cow becomes excited, in proportion 
as the nerve force which should be concentrated upon milk 



making, is distracted therefrom by any cause, dogging, horn- 
flies, abuse, noise, etc., in that proportion there is likelihood 
— almost certainty — that the milk flow will be influenced. 
If I remember right Gov. Hoard tried a few years ago an 
experiment in this line. I believe he was the first man to 
urge that a cow be treated as if she was a lady ; but once 
upon a time he abused a cow in order to know whether or 
not it would affect the quality of the milk. The cow was 
milked about half through and a sample of the latter portion 
of the milk was set aside ; then a heavy pin was raked across 
her flank. She made a jump into the manger and was greatly 
excited. The milking was then finished and a sample taken. 
There was a difference of fifteen per cent in the amount of 
butter fat in the two halves of the milk, a difference of fif- 
teen per cent in the amount of fat eliminated by the nervous 
equation. 

Another experiment in the same line : One of our western 
experimenters fired blank cartridges in front of the cows 
immediately before milking. The explosions decidedly 
affected the quality of the milk. In our own experience 
an Ayrshire, temporarily in new and noisy surroundings, 
increased the quality of the milk without decreasing the flow, 
while another Ayrshire at the same time, treated in exactly 
the same manner, did precisely the reverse and shrank half 
in quality and a quarter in quantity. Anything that tends 
to make a cow nervously excited will be apt to affect the 
milking function and, as a rule, unfavorably. 

Why should we expect a cow or herd of cows always to 
give, week after-week, the same quality of milk ? Milk 
making is the cow's work, just as agricultural investigation 
and teaching and executive duties are my work, and the 
sundry farming operations, your work. Do we always 
work as well one day as another whether we feel well or ill ? 
Though in the best of health do we do the same amount of 
work each day ? Why should we expect a cow to do the 
same day after day ? Her work is expressed by the milk 
she makes, and, largely, by the per cent of fat she puts 
into that milk. We should not expect of her what we our- 
selves cannot do. 



STAGE OF LACTATION. 



The Stage of lactation is another reason why Smith's milk 
test differs from that of Jones's. It is well known that cows 
tend to better the quality of their milk as they progress in 
lactation. Investigation has shown that cows differ greatly 
in this matter. Some vary but slightly and others largely as 
they pass from freshness to stripping. A farrow cow goes 
dry giving milk but little richer than when she came in; a 
pregnant cow going dry usually gives considerably richer 
milk than when she came in. Experiment has shown, more- 
over, that on the average the increase from calving to dry- 
ing-off approximites 1.25 per cent, fat, that is to say a milk 
testing 4 per cent, at calving may test 5.25 per cent, of fat at 
stripping. Smith's milk may be made largely by strippers, 
while Jones' cows may be mostly fresh in milk. 

It is now generally understood that the quality of the milk 
of the same herd varies decidedly from day to day, from 
milking to milking, and that, in order to represent correctly 
the weekly or monthly quality, it is necessary to take a com- 
posite sample. It will sometimes happen, however, that even 
when composite samples are used tests may vary one week 
with another fifty, sixty, or seventy points. I believe it is 
the duty of the creamery management in such case to verify 
the result by retest. Many patrons have an exaggerated idea 
as to this matter. For instance, a few years ago a creamery 
patron told me that he was being defrauded, that his test at 
the creamery one month was 3.90 and the next month 3.85. 
These five points, 0.05 per cent., seemed to him enormous. 
No operator can take the same test in the same Babicock bottle 
and always read it twice alike. Two-tenths of one per cent, 
is not a wide difference between two tests, and three-tenths 
of one per cent, as between one month and another, even 
when the cows are in scant flow, is hardly a wide enough vari- 
ation for cavil; more than that is of importance. But, as I 
shall say later on, one should not growl but investigate. 



MANAGEMENT OF THE CREAMING DEVICES. 

Milk is creamed nowadays either by shallow setting, deep 
setting or centrifugal means The former old-styled and in- 
adequate method is not followed in co-operative dairying and 
may he dismissed from further consideration here. Deep- 
setting systems vary somewhat in character and in efficiency. 
Smith may use a form capable of doing good work when 
conditions favor, and he may run it well. Jones may have a 
so-called dilution separator, sometimes, and wxll, called a 
delusion separator — and get quite likely a richer cream than 
Smith as a consequence, but a good deal less of it. Or one 
may have a centrifugal separator and the other, none ; or 
both may have the same device and handle it in different 
manners. 

Many of the items already referred to affect cream as well 
as milk tests. Breed, individuality, lactation changes, etc., 
play their part here. The term "Jersey Cream " is usually 
held to be a synonym for richness. As a matter of fact, Jer - 
sey milk properly creamed in a deep-setting device is apt to 
make thinner cream than does the milk of other breeds con- 
taining smaller fat globules. In general, milk containing rel- 
atively small fat globules creams less thoroughly than that 
containing larger ones, but such cream as is thrown up is 
usually denser and richer. On this account as well as 
because of its well-known greater richness, stripper milk is 
apt to make a richer deep-setting cream than does new milk. 

II. VARIATIONS IN TESTS BETWEEN CREAMERIES. 

JVAy should Smith's milk or crecifn taken this iveek to Brotvns 
creamery and next week to Robinson s creamery, test differently! 

I presume this is seldom done in Connecticut. It is a com- 
mon practice in Vermont ; but it is an unwise procedure, 
since it accomplishes nothing. 

When we go to bed at night we breathe a prayer in which 
are to be found the words " Lead us not into temptation." 
Human nature is so constituted that it often happens that a 



patron, who takes his milk or cream from Brown's creamery 
to Robinson's, is essentially leading- the latter into tempta- 
tion, into which he is apt to fall. He may feel inclined to 
raise the test, to make it read, or to report its reading, higher 
than it really is. In my judgment such a test is not a test of 
the milk, but of human nature ; and the milk of human 
kindness is altogether too apt to be curdled by such a trial, as 
is the milk of the cow by the sulphuric acid of the Babcock 
method. Such a comparison has no standing and means 
nothing. There are better ways whereby one may find out 
whether Brown's work at the creamery is correct or is not 
correct. One may help himself or be advised by the experi- 
ment station. 

HOW TO CHECK THE CORRECTNESS OF CREAMERY TESTING. 

I believe that a Babcock apparatus should be located in 
every dairy community ; and that there should be there, 
also, some young man or woman capable of running it in a 
satisfactory manner, whose services could be had by any 
one in the community at a small consideration. I do not 
advocate that all dairymen own Babcock apparatus. vSome 
farmers are not fitted to run it properly. A Babcock incor- 
rectly run is worse than none at all, since the results are 
more misleading than instructive. If the test apparatus and 
some man or woman who is careful and capable of running 
it are available, one may know, if he wishes to, whether his 
creamery is doing him justice or not. 

If the community is unwilling to combine in this way, its 
dairymen may turn to the experiment station, an institution 
which is helpful to hundreds of dairymen in the State in this 
very way. It is a common thing up our way for Smith, who 
doubts whether Brown's test is correctly or honestly made, 
to take a sample and express it to the experiment station ; and 
then if its test differs from Brown's there is music in the air. 

You will ask, perhaps, how the station knows that 
the sample that Smith sends has not been tampered 
with. If Smith is a rogue, if for any reason he is 
bound to make his creamery wrong, whether or no, it 
is easy for him to manipulate the sample. So can 



Brown tamper with samples. Yet if the men are sin- 
cere and anxious to know the truth, there are ways in 
which they can insure accuracy. Some little time ago the 
Vermont station put out a four page bulletin, — reprinted at 
the end of this article, — giving methods of sampling milk and 
cream. This has been printed in poster form and was sent 
last spring to every Vermont creamery and cheese factory 
with the request that it be posted near the weigh can. We 
give three schemes for sampling milk or cream whereby the 
patron who desires to check the testing work of the cream- 
ery inay do so ; first, the creamery sample may be halved, 
second, the creamery man may be required to take duplicate 
samples, and, third, a patron may take his sample for him 
self. Neither of these methods of sampling will ensure abso- 
lute accuracy. Errors of omission or commission, of igno- 
rance or intent, may be made. If the creamery samples be 
halved, if Brown is asked to furnish half of it that it may be 
sent to the station, it is located, prior to halving, in the con- 
trol of one of the interested parties, the creamery man; and 
if he is inclined he may tamper with the sample instead of 
with the result. If the second method is used, if every time 
Brown's operative puts a gill of milk or a measure of cream 
into his sample jar he puts one into the jar which the patron 
holds, the objection may be urged that the sample is in the 
hands of the other interested party, the patron. If the dairy- 
man takes his own sainple at home, he may be ill informed 
as to the necessary precautions in sampling, or careless, or, 
indeed, intentionally deceitful, and the sample be not truly 
representative. In short there is no way in which the ex- 
periment station can be certain that the samples sent it are 
correctly taken. Hence we are careful in our reports to 
those sending us samples to disclaim all responsibility as to 
the accuracy of sample taking. I think, however, that the 
bulletin to which I have referred, which was sent to be posted 
at every creamery and cheese factory in Vermont, which was 
mailed by thousands throughout our state to the station 
mailing list, and which concludes this article, does help to 
make the samples that come to us more uniform and trust- 
worthy. 



III. VARIATION IN TESTS WITHIN THE SAME HERD. 

W/iy IS it that SmitJls milk 07- cream taken to Brown s cream- 
ery varies one month with another ? IVhy does it not test evenly ? 

Several of the reasons cited under the first head apply 
here. 

LACTATION CHANGES. 

The change in lactation of the cows is one important reason 
why there should be variation. The general tendency of the 
herd will be as the cows go along in lactation to give some- 
what richer milk. While there are many exceptions, the 
general rule is that cows coming in in the spring will give a 
fairly even grade of milk for the first five months in their 
lactation, and then increase in quality until they go dry. 
If they are farrow cows, quality changes but little as time 
goes on. If an all-the-year-round dairy is kept there should 
be less change on this account. 

These same changes pertain to the cream. The richer 
milk is apt to make richer cream for reasons hitherto pointed 
out, if it is handled by a deep-setting device. Centrifu- 
gal separators, however, are no re.spectors of rich or of poor 
milks. A rich cream luay be made from one and a poor 
cream from the other, according to the setting of the cream- 
screw or regulating device. If, however, this remains un- 
altered and the same proportion of milk is taken as cream 
from the rich and from the thm milk, creams will vary 
accordingly. 

For example if one dairyman has looo pounds of new milk 
testing 3 per cent., and the other, looo pounds of stripper 
milk, testing 5 per cent, and each takes 100 pounds cream 
and 900 pounds skim milk, the former would have a cream 
testing nearly 30 per cent, and the latter, one containing 
approximately 50 per cent. fat. 

WEATHER. 

Stress of weather is another cause of variation. We have 
given much time at the Vermont station to the study of the 



effect of temperature upon the milk-flow. Our results indi- 
cate that the quality of a cow's milk alters inversely to tem- 
perature changes. When the temperature rises the tendency 
is for the quality of the milk to drop ; when the temperature 
falls the tendency is for the quality of the milk to rise. 
There are, however, many exceptions to this rule. No 
attempt has been made to test this matter in long periods 
but only as to daily or weekly fluctuations. 

SURROUNDINGS. 

The environmental differences, the nervous excitement of 
the cow already mentioned, as they vary from time to time, 
may cause fluctuations in the quality of the cow's milk. The 
change from barn to pasture, or the reverse, lack of water, 
poor water, drying pastures, new milkers and the like, may 
and often do have influence. Then, too, it must be confessed 
that there sometimes occur fluctuations in the quality of the 
milk of a cow, and, occasionally, of a herd for a week or 
more, for which no rational explanation can be offered, 
changes which, because of care in sampling and testing and 
the conditions surrounding the operations, are removed 
beyond all likelihood of being due to error rather than to 
fact. There is much that we do not know about cow nature 
and cow doings in milk-making. And here, as ever, those 
who know the most are those who impute the least, while 
those less well informed are the more suspicious of wrong 
doing. 

An editorial in a recent number of Hoard's Dairyman is 
very much to the point in this connection. It says : 

" The cow is not a machine that will turn out the same 
quantity or quality of milk from day to day, and consequently 
the milk varies according to the physical and, perhaps, mental 
condition of the animal. The physical comfort or discomfort 
of the animal is reflected in the milk pail, and if the great 
mass of dairymen would only recognize this fact, it would 
have a beneficial effect on the state of the pocket book. 

In a careful record of the yield of a herd of cows for seve- 
ral years the following facts were noted : 



13 

They varied in quality of milk from one milking- to the 
next, and from day to day, the quality rising and falling 
without apparent cause. 

The changes were usually within i per cent of fat, but one 
cow changed 2.68 per cent, in two days. 

The average change during the period of lactation was 
1.34 per cent., and the greatest change 2.78 per cent. 

The above herd was exceptionally well taken care of and 
sheltered, and the changes in quality of milk were thus much 
less than would be noticed in cases of animals kept imder 
less comfortable conditions. 

The dairymen should remember that exposure to cold, 
drinking large quantities of cold water, exposure to cold 
rain, fright, worry, heat, flies, and dogs, walking several 
miles over poor pasture for food, starvation, soothing the 
cow with kicks or milking stool, will all remove fat from the 
milk and make such treatment more expensive than good 
shelter and kind treatment. 

When a patron's milk shows a low test, let him make a 
careful examination of conditions at home before he lays 
the blame on the butter-maker or the test." 

THE CREAMING DEVICES. 

Actual variations in the management of the creaming 
devices, known or unknown to the operator, account to 
quite an extent for variations in the cream output. For the 
sake of convenience and clearness, let us consider the possi- 
bilities of variation in the deep setting and centrifugal 
methods each by itself. No pretense is made that all pos- 
sible causes of variation are covered. 

DEEP SETTING. 

Temperature. — Completeness of deep-setting creaming is 
largely dependent upon the proper temperature of the 
water. The density of the cream is also affected by this 
factor. A warm water (45° and upwards) means poorer 
creaming and less of a richer cream. Colder water means 
better creamine and a less dense cream. 



14 

Length of setting — The shorter the time, as a rule, the 
thinner the cream. 

Delays in setting — Delays in setting are apt injuriously to 
affect creaming-, and, perhaps, to modify the fat percentage. 

Deep-setting creams from different sources may vary over 
quite a wide range, containing seldom, if ever, more than 25 
percent, fat, or less than 12 per cent. I have seen quite wide 
differences from da}^ to day in the same herd with the same 
milk for which no adequate cause could be assigned. 

SEPARATOR. 

A good separator properly and uniformly run ought to 
turn out from milk of essentially even quality a cream of 
a practically unaltered character. But milks from day to 
day do change in their fat percentage, even though herds 
be of considerable size ; and, consequently, creams vary 
accordingly. As a rule, however, one week with another, if 
no change occurs in the setting or the running of the mech- 
anism, and barring the extreme changes of the latter part of 
the lactation, there should be only minor changes in fat per- 
centages. 

Changes in device for regulating thickness of cream — All sepa- 
rators have means of controlling the proportions of the milk 
taken as cream and as skim milk. If in any way, accidental 
or intentional, the setting is changed, the quality of the 
cream is affected. Accidental changes often occur. The 
outlet becomes clogged, a hair lodges there, a chip or filing 
of steel, or a bit of curd or some speck of dirt gets in, the 
cream flow is retarded and its richness affected. 

Incorrect running — Too low or too high speed or feed, a 
trembling bowl, a machine ill cleansed, out of repair, or out 
of balance may and do affect results. 1 have known positive 
flaws to exist in the mechanism which modified results. 

While not exactly germane to the subject I may be per- 
mitted, I trust, to say a word in answer to the very common 
question at meetings of this kind — What is the best sepa- 
rator ? 

This is one of the most common questions asked of the 



15 

station. Our present feeling in the matter is that there is 
not, of necessity, any one make that is " best " in- all points ; 
that machines of all the more prominent makes are capable 
of doing a good grade of work when properly handled ; that, 
since good skimming is the rule, other points, such as initial 
cost, durability, probable repair bills, ease of operation, etc., 
are now more important ; and, finally, since flaws may occur 
in individual machines of any make, that agents' claims and 
records of other machines of the same make are of less value, 
touching the quality of skimming, than is the analysis of the 
skimmilk of the individual machine offered. Many farmers 
in Vermont have bought separators on the condition that the 
skimmilk should be submitted to the experiment station for 
analysis, purchase to follow its favorable, and rejection its 
unfavorable report. The buyer thus has, free of expense, 
the advantage of the advice of disinterested experts, which 
moreover, is given in ignorance of the kind of machine 
under trial. 

We are now ready to consider a phase of the question 
which I want to treat with the greatest care as to the words 
I use and the impression I leave. 

I believe that among the serious factors in this matter of 
milk test variation are the errors of the testing operation. Let 
us discuss this possibility of error in the manipulation of the 
test under the sundry subheads, sampling, apparatus, errors of 
ignorance and errors of intent. 

SAMPLING. 

By no art of legerdemain can a milk analyst return a 
correct result from an incorrect sample. I am inclined to 
think that a considerable part of the variation between tests 
is due to imperfect methods of sampling. 

Three methods of sampling are more commonly in vogue, 
the dipper method, the' core method and the automatic 
method. The latter is applicable to milk sampling only, 
unless very large c^uantities of cream are brought to the 
factory. The two former are used for both milk and cream. 



i6 

The first named is the most widely used of the three. From 
the mass of tiiilk or cream more or less (almost always less) 
thoroughly stirred (and, indeed, often not stirred at all) a 
gill or less is dipped for a sample. Such procedure may 
result in an accurate sample and it may not. Fresh milk, 
not creamed, well aerated and stirred, carted over rough 
roads and drawn from cows not giving large fat globules, 
may be accurately sampled thus with a minimum amount of 
stirring. On the contrary, milk which has creamed, which 
is a day or more old, from Jersey or Guernsey cows, but 
slightly shaken in transportation, if, in considerable quan- 
tity, cannot be mixed with sufficient thoroughness to insure 
accurate sampling by superficial stirring. The Vermont 
station several years ago did much work in investigating 
methods of milk sampling, as a result of which we are pre- 
pared to say with a fair degree of assurance, that when five 
hundred pounds of milk somewhat creamed is delivered at 
the factory, there is no surety of the accuracy of the sample 
taken therefrom by the dipper method, unless it be stirred 
for from two to four minutes, round and round and up and 
down. Hence it is wise to consider the advisability of 
choosing some method which is more likely than this one to 
insure accurate sampling. 

While there is no method of sampling which is not open 
to defeat through improper handling, there are methods 
wherein there is a greater proportion of automatic action 
than in the one just considered. The coring method is one 
of these. Several devices designed to core milk or cream are 
used. The Scovell sampler, which was used in the World's 
Fair tests in 1893, is a fair type of this class of implement. 
It consists of a small brass tube with a perforated slid- 
ing cap at the bottom. It is lowered into' the fluid slowly so 
that it will flow into the tube until it strikes the bottom, 
when the perforated cap slides over and closes the tube, 
thus procuring a core. This method of sampling, provided 
the cream is not separated in clots and the milk is neither 
loppered or frozen, will take a correct sample if carefully 
used. It is more likely to take a correct sample than is the 
dipper method, or, rather, is less likely to take an incorrect 



17 

one. This method is much to be preferred to the dipper 
method for cream sampling. 

This is, however, a method applicable to milk but not to 
cream sampling which suits me better than either of these, 
known as the automatic method. The apparatus for this 
consists of a weigh can covered by a cone-shaped wire cloth 
or wire mesh, and some means of withdrawing a small 
stream from the outflowing milk. This small stream may 
be abstracted by means of a small faucet, set at the bottom 
of the can within a few inches of the outlet gate, or by 
means of a hole punched in the conductor head or spout. 
The petcock or faucet modification of this device on the 
whole approves itself to me rather than the other. 

The milk being weighed, both the gate and the pet cock 
are opened and remain opened until all the milk has run out. 
A small proportion, varying according to the size of the 
orifice of the petcock, is caught. The relatively small 
amount of milk caught in the pail is very readily mixed, and 
the gill taken. The fine wire-mesh strainer distributing the 
milk into a thousand streams serves to quite an extent to 
mix it. I do not advocate the automatic device unless the 
fine wire mesh be used. 

Governor Hoard of Wisconsin states that the first device 
of that kind used was placed in his creamery, and is yet in 
vogue. As used by him a hole is punched in the bottom of 
the conductor running from the weigh can to the vat at a 
point near the vat. The milk when turned into the weigh 
can is mixed to quite an extent ; the gate is then lifted and it 
pours out in a rush and it mixes itself running and tumbling 
over and over, and just as it nears the vat, a drop or so from 
ever}^ pound of milk falls into the jar. The drip is obtained 
as far from the weigh can as possible. 

This method is not only theoretically accurate but has 
proved to be practically correct in thousands of trials ; and 
it has been found to obviate a large part of the errors and 
annoyances of sampling. The device has been tried over 
and over again as against extreme care in sampling, and has 
proved, I think, correct in every case. It may be misman- 
aged, but it more surely takes an accurate sample than any 



i8 

other practicable method since the sample in part takes itself, 
regardless of care or lack of care on the operative's part. 

APPARATUS. 

A law was passed at the last session of the Vermont legis- 
lature which required, among other things, that the Babcock 
test apparatus used in dividend -making be accurate. I have 
on this table six bottles. Three are good and three are bad. 
Can you tell which is which? The manufacturer "guaran- 
tied " that all were accurate ; yet notwithstanding this guar- 
anty some were excessively inaccurate. Here is an accurate 
cream bottle. How do we know it is so? Not because the 
manufacturer says so, but because, in accordance with Ver- 
mont law, the station of that state has found out whether it 
is accurately graduated or not, and certified thereto, if cor- 
rect, by grinding indelibly upon the neck of the bottle 
VtExSt. 

One creamery insisted that we send back all the bottles 
we found to be incorrect. We did so. I doubt whether they 
were used, however, afterwards; for we ground indelibly 
upon six places on each bottle the word BAD. 

We found that one out of every thirty pieces (three per 
cent.) of the apparatus in use before the law was enacted was 
inaccurate, some exceedingly so. All the apparatus that is 
being sold by the Vermont supply houses to-day is correct, 
because it is all submitted to our inspection and only the cor- 
rect pieces shipped them. As it comes to us now less than 
one-half of one per cent., one in two hundred, is incorrect. 
Clearly this section of the law is of benefit. 

The law is imperfect however. It should cover the accu- 
racy of the centrifugal testing machines. There are centri- 
fugal testing machines in use at creameries so constructed 
that they cannot give correct results; and many are worn 
out. The law should provide for the inspection of these 
machines and prohibit the use of such as yield incorrect 
results. 

ERRORS OF IGNORANCE. 

The Vermont law requires that every operator of the Bab- 



19 

cock test for dividend-making shall be examined as to his 
knowledge of the method of its operation; and that he shall 
secure a certificate from the dairy school of the University 
of Vermont and State Agricultural College that he is com- 
petent and well qualified to perform the work. 

The law has forced many operators to perfect themselves 
so they could pass the examination and get a license, who 
otherwise would have tested with but a half knowledge of 
the process. There have been tested up to Jan. i, 1901, over 
21,500 milk and cream bottles and pipettes and 342 would-be 
licensees. Had it not been for the law 341 incorrect bottles 
and 48 incompetent operators, unable to test correctly even 
under conditions when if ever they would have striven to do 
their best, would have been to-day adjudicating the value of 
milk at Vermont creameries and factories. Large numbers 
ofoincorrect pipettes and acid measures have been detected 
and regraduated and are not included in this showing. A 
considerable number of operatives were refused licenses on 
the first examination, but were granted them after they 
proved on second trial, that they had learned how to test 
milk. Every man testing in Vermont to-day at least knew 
how to test when he took the examination. Whether in 
actual work he does as well as he knows is another story. I 
see no reason why a law of this sort should not work well in 
Connecticut. It works no hardship to any one, provides for 
the removal of incorrect apparatiis and keeps incompetent 
men out of responsible places. 

Many operators have protested against our ruling that 
they test cream on the ground that whole milk only was 
delivered at their creameries. We have insisted on this 
point for three reasons. In the first place the law refers to 
the testing of both products ; then again, the farm separator 
is so commonly used, that most creameries are equipped and 
all must soon be equipped to test cream ; and, finally, there 
is a greater likelihood of error in cream analysis than in 
milk analysis. This error is largely due to the fact that 
when cream is pipetted — particularly separator cream, or, 



indeed, any cream carrying over twenty-five per cent of fat 
— it is so thick that it does not flow readily. Eighteen grams 
is not delivered into the bottle by measuring eighteen cubic 
centimeters. Then, again, the cream may be frothy or filled 
with gas bubbles. These errors cause low results, unless 
they are avoided by the use of a correction table or unless 
the pipette delivery is weighed. 

The correct amount of cream is most surely obtained by 
weighing the pipette delivery. vSo many fail in this matter 

that I want to make it 
clear. The apparatus 
needed is simply a small 
druggist's scale and a few 
weights. The empty 
cream bottle on one scale 
is balanced by the slide or 
weights on the other. An 
eighteen gram weight is 
added and the well mixed 
cream is pipetted into the 
cream bottle until the 
balance swings evenly. The test is then proceeded with as 
usual. The operation is no more intricate than is the- 
weighing of the butter into the tub in which it is packed. 
It is precisely the same thing, weighing into a weighed 
empty package a given weight of the material wanted. The 
extra time consumed need not be more than a minute to the 
sample, and as a result of its expenditure far greater accu- 
racy is insured. Every patron taking separator cream to a 
creamery should insist that the management test eighteen 
grams of his cream, that they weigh the delivery of the 
pipette. 

That this matter may be made the more clear two pic- 
tures of cream test scales are given. The larger one is 
manufactured by the Springer Torsion Balance Co., 92 
Reade Street, New York, in accordance with the suggestions 
of the Maine experiment station. The empty cream bottle is 
placed in the specially adapted left-hand pan, is counterpoised 
by the slide and weights or both, and then eighteen grams of 





cream are pipetted against an added 
eighteen gram weight. The smaller 
cut shows a new scale made by 
Henry Troemner, 710 Market Street, 
Philadelphia, Pa. It is as nearly 
rust-proof as possible, its three inch 
bearings are set with agate and its pans are made of por- 
celain. Its method of use is similar to- that indicated for 
the Springer scale. These scales with weights cost from 
eight to ten dollars, and both are excellently adapted to the 
purpose. 

ERRORS OF INTENT. 

I believe in the "open door" system in a creamer}- . I would 
have the management open its books and its testing opera- 
tions to patrons. I know of one creamery where the test is 
done in secret and the books kept under lock and key. 
Secrecy is unwise; publicity disarms suspicion. Dishonest 
methods of sampling or testing are used occasionally. I be- 
lieve that "•occasionally" is as strong a word as is warranted 
by the facts. I feel that ninet}- or ninety-five per cent, of 
the troubles which agitate the patrons as to the test system 
are iinaginary rather than real. Yet, unfortunately, some- 
times errors of intent, deliberate dishonesty, exist. I have, 
however, no sympathy for a patron who growls, or swears, 
or whines, who claims that he has no recourse, that he is in 
the hands of a management and must take what they give 
him, who alleges incompetence or worse, without striving to 
correct it or to confirm his allegations by investigation. He 
has recourse. He can, if he will, work out his own salvation, 
either by his own hand, by that of some bright young man 
or woman, or by that of Uncle Sam. If he is sincere, if he 
really wants to learn the truth, he can help nimself or be 
helped to attain the right in the manner already cited. 

One of my former associates on the Vermont Board of 
Agriculture was wont to say, that in this era of trusts, which 
are viewed with some suspicion, there is the one trust we 
should accept to a greater . extent than we do, and that is 
"trust one another." The present creamery conditions do 



not, in my judgment, warrant the wholesale feeling of dis- 
trust which is prevalent among patrons. I would substitute 
for the word "distrust" one which I think will be found far 
more helpful as a means of arriving at the truth, one which 
will satisfy the creamer}' management far better, the word 
"investigate." 

Do not distrust but investigate. I am confident that most 
creamery managements will gladly meet candid and sincere 
patrons more than half-way in the investigation of apparent 
discrepancies and in the rectification of any proved inaccu- 
racy or injustice. When the day of general mutual investi- 
gation dawns in creamery work there will be greater har- 
mony between patron and management, and better work all 
around. 



University of Vermont 

AND State Agriculttral College 

VERMONT 

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 

burlington, vt. 

Special Bulletin, October, 1899. 

SAMPLING MILK AND CREAM. 

Dairymen are learning to use the Babcock test more every 
year upon their individual cows or the entire dairy, either 
using it themselves or having tests made for them at the 
creamery or by the experiment station. The results of anal- 
ses are useless and misleading if obtained on poor samples. 
There is reason to believe that many do not understand how 
easy it is to take an incorrect sample. 

The following directions for accurate sample taking are 
printed for the information of the dairymen of the state. 
Copies will be sent without charge to any address on appli- 
cation to the Experiment Station, Burlington, Vt. 

I. To test individual cows. — Provide as many fruit jars 
(pints or quarts) as there are cows to be tested. (Wide- 



mouthed botttles will do if jars cannot be obtained. If used, 
they should have tight corks. Narrow-mouthed bottles 
make accurate sampling difficult and often impossible.) 

Label each jar. Into each put preservative to keep the 
milk sweet. (Use either formalin, sometimes called formal- 
dehyde, about 20 to 30 drops ; or corrosive sublimate, colored 
with analin red, about ten grains ; or potassium bichromate' 
not more than ten grains. Formalin is preferable and non- 
poisonous, the other two are poisons and should be handled 
carefully. These, or some one of these, may be obtained at 
any drug store or at the local creamery.) 

At the first milking pour the entire milk of the cow back 
and forth from one pail to another not less than three times 
and then a^ once dip out approximately a gill (a gill cup on a 
long handle works well — a small tea-cup will do) and pour 
into the jar. Close the jar and keep it closed until the next 
milking. Proceed thus with each cow. At the next milk- 
ing repeat the operation, adding a second gill of recently- 
poured milk from the first cow to the gill taken at the first 
milking, and similarly with the other cows. Proceed thus 
for from four to eight successive milkings, keeping the jar 
closed except when putting in the milk. This makes what 
is known as the composite sample, one which is much more 
trustworthy than a sample taken from a single milking. If 
samples are to be transported, the last sub-sample of each 
composite sample taken should be made to fill the jar absolutely 
full to prevent churning luhile in transit. 

Cows vary considerably in the quality of their milk at 
different stages of lactation. If only infrequent samples are 
taken, most nearly accurate results (that is, such as will most 
closely indicate the average quality for the year) will be 
usually obtained if samples are taken approximately as 
follows: 

Cows calving in the spring: One composite sample six 
weeks and another six and a half to seven and a half months 
after calving; or two composite samples, taken about two 
weeks apart six months after calving. 

Cows calving in the summer: One composite sample eight 
weeks and another six to seven months after calving; or two 



24 • 

composite samples, taken about two weeks apart, from three 
to five months after calving. 

Cows calving in the fall: One composite sample eight to 
ten weeks and one five and a half to seven months after 
calving: or two composite samples, taken about two weeks 
apart, from five to seven months after calving. 

Samples taken at other times may give satisfactory results. 
Prolonged experience has shown, however, that greater 
likelihood of getting a correct average for the year is attained 
by sampling at these times. 

II. To test the entire dairy as a whole. — Prepare a fruit jar 
as under I. If the churn will hold the entire milking, pour 
it in and slowly revolve the churn for a couple of minutes, 
then draw out, taking a gill soon after starting the milk out 
of the gate. Repeat tor several milkings as under T. 

If the milking is too big for the churn, pour the milk in 
each large can three or four times back and forth and after 
the last pouring 'of each can dip out at once a gill into a 
second jar. Having gills from each can united in the jar, 
pour these not less than three times. Take one gill and put 
into jar as under I. The stirring method of sampling from 
large cans should not be resorted to unless neither of those 
cited above is practicable. If used, the contents of each large 
can should be vigorously stirred with a long handled dipper 
round and round, reverse, and dipping deep, from one to 
three minutes, and a gill taken into a second jar at once on 
the completion of the stirring of each can of milk, the several 
united gills to be poured and one gill taken for the final com- 
posite sample which should be built up as under I. 

III. To test cream from the dairy. — (a.) vShallow setting cream. 
This class of cream cannot be accurately sampled or tested. 

(b.) Deep setting or so-called "gravity" cream. The 
entire lot of cream merged together should be poured as 
with milk under II. and a gill taken into a jar as under I. 

(c.) Separator cream. Proceed as under III. (b.) If 
thick, stirring may suffice as under II. 

Not less than a pint should be used for a sample. Small samples 
and narrotv-mouthed bottles are untrustworthy. 

IV. To test skim milk from a dairy. — (a.) Shallow setting. 



If sour, add a little caustic soda or lye and mix and pour 
until fluid. Put a gill into a jar without preservative. 
Make composite sample (four sub-samples) as under 1. 

(b.) Deep setting or so called " gravity." Pour or stir 
vigorously ; take gill from each can and finally pour or stir 
the united gills and take a single gill. Make composite 
sample (four sub-samples) as under I. using preservative. 

(c.) Separator. Catch skim milk from three to five times 
each run, d^'stributed throughout the run. Pour and take a 
gill for composite. Make four sub-sample composite for 
test as under I., using preservative. 

Less time need be spent in mixing skim-milk than with 
the whole milk or cream. 

V. To test buttertnilk or whey. — Draw directly from gate or 
siphon ; make use of the composite sample with preserva- 
tive. 

VI. To check cor>'ectness of test at creamery or cheese factory. — 
(a.) Halving creamery sample. When the creamery com- 
posite sample is complete and ready for testing, require the 
operator to furnish one-half of it. Be certain that the sam- 
ple is thoroughly mixed by pouring, that all the cream from 
the sides of the jar, cover, etc., is mixed back into the milk 
or cream, and that the halving is done immediately after the 
last pouring. 

(b.) Duplicating creamery sample. Every time that the 
party sampling milk or cream at the creamery or on the 
gathering route samples a patron's milk or cream, the latter 
may require him to furnish a duplicate sample in a jar con- 
trolled by the patron. Duplicate composite samples may 
be made thus which should test closely alike. 

(c.) Sampling at the dairy. Follow directions under 11. 
or III. 

Either of these three methods of checking creamery 
testing is open to objection. In (a) the sample or testing 
may be incorrectly managed at the creamery, the sample 
being under control of one of the interested parties, the 
creamery man. In (b) the sample may be improperly 
handled by the other interested party, the patron under 
whose control it is located. Method (c). resembles (b) in 



26 

this respect, and, moreover, results may be vitiated because 
of error or insufficient care in sampling. 

The experiment station strongly urges dairymen as far as 
possible to make use of the Babcock test at their own homes. 
It is of more value as used between cow and cow than for 
settling money matters between man and man. 

To such residents of the wState as do not consider it advis- 
able to make their own tests, or to have neighbors make 
them for them, the experiment station offers its services to 
a limited extent.* It cannot do regular and wholesale test- 
ing for any individual or company, but will handle small 
numbers of samples without charge. It makes but few 
requirements, as follows : 

1. Samples should be carefully taken in accordance with 
these instructions. 

2. Wide mouthed jars should be used. 

3. Jars should be filled absolutely full to prevent churning in 
transit. 

4. Express charges should be prepaid. In case jars are 
desired back again, the express agent should be asked to 
affix a " free return empty" label on the package and it will 
be returned without cost. 

5. The shipper's name should be placed upon the package 
for purposes of identification. 

Question. You state that changes in feeding will not 
alter the quality of milk. To what do you ascribe the popu- 
lar idea to the contrary ? 

Answer. To several causes. In the first place temporary 
changes frequently occur: that is to say, for a few days, or, 
indeed, perhaps for a couple of weeks, a cow may respond to 
a change of ration with a better quality of milk. This 
change, however, is but temporary, and she reverts to her 
regular quality sooner or later, regardless of the change in 
the feeding. Then again, few people weigh the milk, and 
they are apt to fail to discriminate between gain in quantity 
and gain in quality. Yet, again, the change in the ration 

*The writer is authorized by Director E H. Jenkins of the Connecticut Experi- 
ment Station, New Haven, Conn., to say that that station will make, free of charge, 
analyses of milk for citizens of Connecticut. 



27 

may be so excessive (as from an ill-adapted to a well-adapted 
feed, or the'reverse,) that a positive but slight change in the 
quality of the milk will result. It is now the universal testi- 
mony of every experiment station, official and scientific 
observer, who has worked upon thisrproblem with adequate 
opportunities and facilities, that the quality of ihe milk a 
cow gives is inherent in the animal and cannot permanently 
be changed by any modification of ration. 

Q. I notice that you mention the dilution separators, and 
speak of them as "delusion separators." Are these the 
devices which have been advertised in the papers of late for 
raising cream with cold water ? 

A. Yes, sir. There are several of these things on the 
market. They are nothing more nor less than tin cans with 
some minor variations in their mechanism. The milk diluted 
with half or more water is set therein, and the cream which 
rises is skimmed. They are sold at relatively low prices, but, 
in my judgment, are dear at any price. Rarely, if at all, will 
they skim closely ; and the skim-milk is deteriorated for feed- 
ing purposes. It is safe to say, that if a man has a dairy of 
more than two or three cows he will lose enough in th 
course of a year, in these two items, to go a long way toward 
paying for a more expensive and more efficient creaming 
mechanism. The pretensions of the manufacturers of these 
cans have been very thoroughly exposed in the publications 
of several experiment stations. Those who may care to look 
into this are welcome to send to us for our publication on the 
subject. The Cornell Experiment Station at Ithaca, New 
York, has likewise issued matter on this subject. I believe 
the dilution separators are excellent things for the dairymen 
to let alone. 

Q. I have a herd of cows, and suspect that some of them 
may not be worth their keep. How may I most easily and 
cheaply, and yet surely, find out about this matter ? 

A. You need know three things, — the quantity of milk 
which each cow gives, the quality of milk each gives, and, 
roughly, the cost of the food which makes it. A small spring 
balance will furnish the first, the Babcock test the second, 



28 

and observation the third. It is not necessary that the milk 
be weighed every day. If you weigh the milk of each cow, 
say, on two or three days in the month, and then multiply 
results by fifteen or by ten, as the case may be, the results 
will be close enough for most farmer's purposes. If the 
samples are taken twice a year, as indicated in the bulletin a 
few pages back of this, you will get a close notion of the 
quality. The food need not be weighed, but any observing 
dairyman can tell pretty closely for himself the appetites of 
his cows. 

This will all take time. It will cost a little something. 
It will mean mental effort. Many of you no doubt will say 
you cannot afford to spend the time or money nor the bother 
with it, that it is not worth while. Yet I will guarantee 
that a man with a herd of twenty cows for an expenditure 
not to exceed five dollars in money, and not to exceed two 
days' time, get a very close ntDtion of the dairy abilities of 
his sundry animals. 

Q. I have a deep setting device apparently in good con 
dition. Will it be worth my while to replace this by a sep- 
arator ? 

A. I cannot tell for a surety. Too many conditions come 
in to admit of ones giving a dogmatic yes or no. I think there 
is no question, however, that at the end of the year a sepa- 
rator (if a good one and properly run) will have yielded 
more of your special product, be it cream or butter, than can 
the deep setting device. If, however, the extra initial cost, 
and the possible extra expense of use more than offset this, 
it might not be a wise investment. These points, however, 
are ones which each man can answer for himself better than 
I can for him. For most dairymen, however, I believe the 
centrifugal will in the long run prove more satisfactory and 
more economical. 

Q. Is the incorrect Babcock apparatus of which you speak 
made so designedly, or through carelessness ? 

A. Probably the latter. This, however, would not affect 
the result. It makes but little difference to a dead man 
whether he was shot by a knave or by a fool. 



Q. What do you recommend as a law covering this sub- 
ject in this State ; 

A. I would recommend certification of glassware, inspec- 
tion of centrifugal testing machines and licensing of opera- 
tors on examination. Of these I believe the first is the 
least, and the third the most important point. All of them, 
however, are desirable. 

Q. I notice you recommend the use of balances for 
weighing cream. This is seldom done, if at all, in Connect- 
icut. What is the result ? 

A. Such samples as contain more than 25 per cent of fat 
almost inevitably will be rated too low, unless the cream is 
weighed. In other words the patron making thick cream is 
at a disadvantage unless balances are used. He who makes 
deep setting cream need not worry about this. He who has 
a separator and makes thick cream should make life misera- 
ble for the creamery proprietor until cream balances are 
procured, or else should make thin cream. 

Q. Cannot some calculation be made to obviate this ? 

A. Calculation sometimes serves, but results are fre- 
quently faulty. It is better to weigh the cream and know 
that results are correct. The cost of the balances is slight, 
and there is but little extra work involved. 



lllllllililNh'! _ . . . 

000 885 442 7 ' 



.//rr 



'•iiiBr 



Hollinger Corp. 



